​Nicky Morgan has outlined plans to revise the way in which seven-year-olds are assessed in England. Whilst Morgan claims that this is to “be really confident that students are progressing well through primary school,” this is because the current education policy consensus is that some schools are somehow ‘failing’ children, and that testing will reveal the culprits.

Why is the government planning to impose written tests on seven-year-­olds? Firstly, the government wanted to test four-year-olds but have been outflanked by schools. Secondly, the government is creating the impression that it is possible to test young children in a way which is unbiased. Lastly, this is all underpinned by flawed hypotheses about schools, teaching and children.

The government has introduced a Reception Baseline assessment which schools must introduce in September 2016. Following a typically convoluted - and very political - development process, three providers have been approved. Two of the RBAs are test based, and the third – from Early Excellence – is not. Schools have, overwhelmingly, decided not to test four-year-olds and have opted for the Early Excellence teacher assessment option.

Why is this a problem for the government? Well, the RBA was introduced because politicians have issues with teacher-assessed Key Stage 1 reporting of reading, writing and maths achievement. Schools are accused, for example, of depressing KS1 results so that children’s overall progress across KS2 isn’t accurate. Additionally, the government felt that schools were not being held rigorously accountable for their KS1 children’s progress, and that a measure of progress from 4 to 11 was required.

Politicians have, for a number of reasons, bought into the fallacy that it is possible to test young children in a way which is unbiased and accurate. Now, on one level, they know that this isn’t possible. Commentators like Daisy Christodoulou have pointed out that we have good research to show that, being human, teachers are not immune to the biases all humans have when they try to make judgements about children’s progress and attainment, particularly that of disadvantaged groups, so it follows that teacher assessments are biased and therefore wrong.

And as Daisy has pointed out, tests are fair inasmuch as ‘every pupil is treated the same, they take the same questions in the same conditions at the same time, and it’s hard or even impossible to get special treatment.’ The key question is, does this make tests unbiased and accurate in the way politicians want them to be?Well, no. It would seem to be obvious that tests are biased towards the more able*. What is not obvious, it seems, is that this is true regardless of who teaches them. And whilst many people are uncomfortable about what we know about ability, we know that ability is not equally distributed. Overall, smart children do well in test situations, and the less able do less well. The inconvenient truth that this is primarily a function of the child, not their teachers or schools, is simply being ignored in this debate.

In addition, test accuracy is a minefield for an almost endless number of reasons. This is true of tests for older children, and if anything, it’s worse for younger children grouped into annualised cohorts which do not account for age within cohort. Some seven-year-olds have enormous advantages over their classmates purely because of their birthdates. And test scores are extremely fuzzy at best.

These two problems mean that assessments of school children abound with both false positives and false negatives. Some children, teachers and schools look great, some don’t, because the tests are biased towards those who are good at learning and taking tests, and the tests are biased, fuzzy and inaccurate.

It also assumes what US teacher Eric Kalenze calls the Lazy Bum Hypothesis - that we need to ‘beat lazy teachers into working harder, talentless teachers into becoming more effective and autopilot teachers into retirement.’ This false hypothesis holds that some children don’t make progress because their teachers are simply too lazy to make them do so, which is clearly not the case.

Even more depressingly, pro-‘accountability’ zealots will claim that those opposed to high stakes assessment are ‘anti-accountability’. But this too is simply a misunderstanding. Opposition to high stakes test culture should be based on carefully explaining the flawed assumptions which are made about biased, fuzzy and inaccurate tests which, for many reasons (the chief of which is that most test score variation comes from the children themselves) throw up misleading ‘trends’ in aggregated data which are, in reality, simply a reflection of what we know to be true about children’s differing capability and capacity to learn.

As I’ve said before, learning is done by the child, and not by the teacher. Assessing children, especially young children – however you do it – is always biased, fuzzy and inaccurate. Tests are obviously biased. Reintroducing written tests for seven-year-olds is a retrograde step which will not help to improve schooling in any way, and will simply keep schools focused on incorrectly identified problems which simply do not exist in reality.

----------

*Through out this post, I've used the word 'bias' in the sense that it means 'inclination or prejudice for or against one person or group'. So when I say tests are biased, I mean specifically that they are biased towards those who have a greater capacity to learn and capability to learn to learn, and thus do better in test situations. Now, in the field of psychometrics, a test would be said to be biased if a 'test design, or the way results are interpreted and used, systematically disadvantages certain groups of students over others.' For now, this typical definition doesn't acknowledge that groups of children who have a greater capacity to learn and capability to learn to learn are a group just like any other. I suggest that it should, and that tests are obviously biased towards these children.

-------The cartoon below is a tongue in cheek summary of the way in which accountability has changed in the last 45 years or so (thanks to Joining the Debate for the link).

Excellent article (as ever)
"learning is done by the child, and not by the teacher"
with this in mind I couldn't resist mentioning this cartoon I recently came across
http://nbnotewell.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/the-second-best-educational-cartoon-ever.html
you can read my tongue in cheek suggestion at
https://joiningthedebate.wordpress.com/2015/11/07/poster-for-parents-evenings/

Reply

Jack Marwood

8/11/2015 11:05:15 am

Thanks for this JTD, and thanks for the link to the excellent cartoon, which I have added to the post above...

Reply

ephemeral321

10/11/2015 06:23:29 pm

I prefer your definition of bias "biased towards those who have a greater capacity to learn and capability to learn to learn and thus do better in test situations".

I question the assumption that 'more able' children will naturally do better in test situations. It ignores the conditions leading up to the test and within SATs week.

For the more able to do better in test situations it relies on:

1) Them being able to access the curriculum in good time to the higher levels - I believe with a good teacher (L6 on old NC). This will always be determined by the teacher not the child, and likely influenced by resources issue, problems in earlier years, etc.

2) Can a child really then do well in test situation? Could an outstanding school argue good attainment for a child who starts KS2 at L3 and ends at L5 who was identified as 'more able' until progress not appropriate for more able. Probably - if you never cross-reference to the Y7 IQ tests that shows child is in top 1%. No matter what cohort they need proper access to the curriculum being measured.

3) I'm confused. Tests 'imposed' on 7yos isn't new. My 11yo and 8yo sat externally moderated high-stakes SATs at the end of KS1, and internally moderated SATs every year since until high-stakes Y6 SATs.

4) My 8yo sat her end KS1 tests but didn't access the L3 tests (physically too tired and panicked to sit next test after the break and tchr didn't put her in for any other L3 tests). Teacher assessed her as more able but it seems she needed to pass the L3 test to be recognised under the school policy. Under old NC tests an artificial ceiling results seemingly to apply to measured attainment in KS2, and beyond.

5) Which raises a necessary point. More Able children had to sit L3-L5 tests and in addition L6 papers as well. They were an endurance test first, and a measure of attainment second. I'm assuming the new Y6 tests have reduced the number of test papers?

1) Externally moderated tests at KS1 is a bit different to externally marked tests. We've had internal marked tests (with external moderation) since 2004, when the previous externally marked tests were scrapped. https://theconversation.com/weve-tested-seven-year-olds-in-schools-before-heres-why-we-stopped-50225

2) Yes, the new KS2 tests don't include a 'Level 6' equivalent, so somewhat different in 2016. Should still only take a week to administer KS2 tests, however - https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-curriculum-assessments-future-test-dates/future-assessment-arrangements

The problem is not so much testing in itself, as the design of the tests, and the way testing is used to clobber teachers. If tests were better designed and more regular and the data were not abused, they could be beneficial. I realise that is a big 'if'.

Reply

Jack Marwood

16/11/2015 08:57:34 pm

Thanks Anthony,

And yes, I quite agree. Tests, in themselves, should be part of all teachers' repertoires, as they give you lots of information which is helpful in many ways.

My main point still stands however, which is that some children are really good at tests, and some aren't. No-stakes tests are helpful so that teachers can see what children have learned. Attaching any stakes whatsoever to a test (especially one in which children have absolutely no vested interest whatsoever) immediately distorts the process, ignores what science tells us about children's capacity and capability and leads pupils, children and schools on a wild goose chase...

Jack

Reply

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.

Leave a Reply.

Author

Me?
I work in primary education and have done for ten years. I also have children
in primary school. I love teaching, but I think that school is a thin layer of icing on top of a very big cake, and that the misunderstanding of test scores is killing the love of teaching and learning.